In analyzing oppressive systems like racism, social theorists have articulated accounts of the dynamic interaction and mutual dependence between psychological components, such as individuals’ patterns of thought and action, and social components, such as formal institutions and informal interactions. We argue for the further inclusion of physical components, such as material artifacts and spatial environments. Drawing on socially situated and ecologically embedded approaches in the cognitive sciences, we argue that physical components of racism are not only shaped by, but also (...) shape psychological and social components of racism. Indeed, while our initial focus is on racism and racist things, we contend that our framework is also applicable to other oppressive systems, including sexism, classism, and ableism. This is because racist things are part of a broader class of oppressive things, which are material artifacts and spatial environments that are in congruence with an oppressive system. (shrink)

Many people believe that the research-based pharmaceutical industry has a ‘special’ moral obligation to provide lifesaving medications to the needy, either free-ofcharge or at a reduced rate relative to the cost of manufacture. In this essay, I argue that we can explain the ubiquitous notion of a special moral obligation as an expression of emotionally charged intuitions involving sacred or protected values and an aversive response to betrayal in an asymmetric trust relationship. I then review the most common arguments used (...) to justify the claim that the pharmaceutical industry has a special moral obligation and show why these justifications fail. Taken together, these conclusions call into question the conventional ideologies that have traditionally animated the debate on whether the pharmaceutical industry has special duties of beneficence and distributive justice with respect to the impoverished in dire need of their products. (shrink)

We welcome Mikhalevich & Powell’s (2020) (M&P) call for a more “‘inclusive”’ animal ethics, but we think their proposed shift toward a moral framework that privileges false positives over false negatives will require radically revising the paradigm assumption in animal research: that there is a clear line to be drawn between sentient beings that are part of our moral community and nonsentient beings that are not.

Norenzayan and colleagues suggest that Big Gods can be replaced by Big Governments. We examine forms of social and self-monitoring and ritual practice that emerged in Classical China, heterarchical societies like those that emerged in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, and the contemporary Zapatista movement of Chiapas, and we recommend widening the hypothesis space to include these alternative forms of social organization.

Judith Jarvis Thomson has recently proposed a new argument for the thesis that killing the one in the Trolley Problem is not permissible. Her argument relies on the introduction of a new scenario, in which the bystander may also sacrifice herself to save the five. Thomson argues that those not willing to sacrifice themselves if they could may not kill the one to save the five. Bryce Huebner and Marc Hauser have recently put Thomson's argument to empirical test by asking (...) people what they should do in the new trilemma case, in which they may also sacrifice themselves. They found that the majority judge that they should either kill the one or sacrifice themselves; Huebner and Hauser argue that those numbers speak against Thomson's argument. But Thomson's argument was about the dialectical effect of the new trilemma on the traditional dilemma, rather than about the trilemma itself. Here I present the results of a study in which I asked subjects first what they should do in the trilemma and then what they should do in the traditional Trolley Problem. I found that, if asked first about the trilemma, subjects then have the intuition that killing the one in the traditional Bystander at the Switch is not permissible?exactly what Thomson's argument had predicted. (shrink)

Cognitive scaffolding refers to external structures that change the cognitive demands of tasks. This dissertation begins by reviewing the literature around scaffolding—discussing key thinkers such as Hutchins (1995a), Clark (1997) and Sterelny (2003, 2010). I then develop the above scaffolding characterisation by drawing a distinction between shallow and deep scaffolding. Shallow scaffolding primarily involves cues, whereas deep scaffolding involves the significant offloading of cognitive work. By appealing to the complementarity thesis, I show that deep scaffolds can be explained through a (...) model of cognitive extension (Menary, 2006; Sutton, 2010). Most crucially, despite the abundance of benign/ neutral examples in the literature, I argue that scaffolding can also be ‘hostile’ to agents’ interests—benefitting one agent while undermining another. I draw on Sterelny (2003) to clarify my use of the word ‘hostile’ and also specify what I mean by ‘interests’. I then review authors with similar concerns to my own—i.e., the lack of discussion around external structures that negatively impact agents (Aagaard, 2020; Liao & Huebner, 2020; Slaby, 2016). Despite these authors’ concerns, the idea of ‘hostile scaffolding’ is not quite reached. I then present examples of shallow hostile scaffolding by reviewing how sunglasses (Viola, 2022) and casino interior design and ambience (Friedman, 2000; Schüll, 2012) can be hostile. Most importantly, I show that deep hostile scaffolding is a genuine concern (and not only a theoretical one) by reviewing gambling machines that use player tracking systems and virtual reel mapping (Schüll, 2012), as well as Twitter’s use of gamification (Nguyen, 2021). I close the dissertation by discussing avenues for future hostile scaffolding research. This includes the ethical implications deep hostile scaffolding, scaffolding’s role in forming addictive behavior, other instance of gamification, ‘racist scaffolding’, and hostile scaffolding in developing technologies (such as VR, dark patterns and AI). (shrink)

Essential for the concept of the law of nature is not only spatio-temporal universality, but also functionality in the sense of the dependency on physical conditions of natural entities. In the following it is explained in detail that just the neglect of this functional property is to be understood as the real reason for the occurrence of the Goodman paradox – with the consequence, that the behavior of things seems to be completely at the mercy of change of unique unrepeatable (...) temporal points. It is exactly this (mis-)understanding that also generated the induction problem. From the intrinsic connection between universality and functionality, however, – that is my claim – the ontological consequence of a nature results, for which lawfulness is coupled to essentially functionally defined time sequences, thereby implying a potentiality dimension of nature, too. (shrink)